I really admire the German zweihander swords, and two-handed swords in general. Zweihanders look more intimidating. I wish a company found on K.O.A. would make a replica of one with a straight blade - not the wavy "flamberge" blade.

Anyway ... I wanted to ask you more informed gentlemen a question since many (if not all) zweihanders have a ricasso for gripping the sword further along its length while one hand still grips the handle. I think "Danes" with those cool type XVIIIe blades have a ricasso too.

Am I correct in thinking that these two-handed swords were not used only as swords in the usual sense? Given their length, and the use of a ricasso, were some polearm-like techniques used with zweihanders too?

Obviously, one could still swing, chop, thrust, parry, and half-sword like with other swords. However, I was wondering if zweihanders were designed to be more like a combination weapon. Sort of part polearm, part sword. I guess what I am trying to say is in a sword vs. sword situation, polearm-like techniques could be initially employed with a zweihander. Then conventional and half-swording techniques were employed as the range decreased. I do not know if zweihanders were ever used as dueling weapons, but perhaps I am asking about what happened with a zweihander after one got done chopping off pike heads.

I hope my logic is correct. Perhaps I am not using the correct terms. It just seems like one would take full advantage of a zweihander's length like one does with a polearm before going into "sword mode."

Am I sort of thinking correctly? I welcome all comments, and I thank you for tolerating my ignorance. Hopefully, someone like Christian Tobler will make a zweihander/two-handed sword DVD one day. I simply find two-handed swords a big mystery. There is now plenty of literature explaining how a "normal" European medieval sword was used (like Albion's Munich sword). However, I know of no source explaining how zweihanders were properly used.

I sense a few different principles were involved with using a two-handed sword. After all, it was a different weapon. Thanks guys!DUSTIN FAULKNER

Like a polearm? Sure. But what does this mean? There was some discussion of this, on what it means to use a polearm, in a recent thread on Axes and Footwork. The weapon isn't used in isolation, it's part of the overall (human+weapon), and the human part stays the same. There is a great similarity between the use of a sword in two hands and a polearm. I think that a Zweihänder sits very nicely in the middle of this, and that sword in two hands, Zweihänder, and polearms. In a very important way, Zweihänder sits on the polearm side in this continuum.

It's very much like a sword in that it's shaped like a sword, and holding it by the grip in both hands, you can move it from one side of your body like a sword. That is, the pommel has room to move in front of your body. You can use the usual longsword guards with no (or at most, a little) modification, the same attacks, etc.

It's different from the usual longsword in that it's significantly heavier. No cheating in terms of body mechanics! You need to move with it, need to step with it, turn with it. You must use proper footwork, proper body motion. Of course, you can use the same footwork etc with a longsword, but with a Zweihänder, you must use it. It shares this with (heavy) polearms. (This brings to mind Chinese use of extra-heavy polearms as training/examination weapons, to force the user to use proper footwork and body motion.)

And since you have a range advantage over longsword, you can use polearm strategy against a longsword. (And against a polearm, you are short, and need to use longsword versus polearm strategy from the longsword side?)

A key point in the Montante manual that's been mentioned before (here and also when we discusses the Zweihänder back at the start of the year) is the body mechanics, step and move with the weapon.

There is one thing that seems to me to be different, a way in which the Zweihänder is not just a sword/polearm intermediate - it looks very good for chopping off feet. I've not studied this in detail, but as a casual Zweihänder tactic, it works very well."In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.

I really admire the German zweihander swords, and two-handed swords in general. Zweihanders look more intimidating. I wish a company found on K.O.A. would make a replica of one with a straight blade - not the wavy "flamberge" blade.

Not a true twohander and more a hand and a half/bastard sword with a complex hilt, but it would work as a smaller more compact version: I have this one also and am very happy about it. It has a hilt/guard that wouldn't be out of place on a rapier but it's on a bastard sword. Good for later period longsword.
http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=...Half+SwordYou can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!

I might end up eating my words, but I'd wager that there was a pretty significant difference in deployment/usage and technique between the zweihander and other longswords in the "really big" category. Christian, I've only seen a few reproduced illustrations from Goliath, but if I recall them correctly, the swords shown there are more or less upsized longswords, aren't they (I don't suppose you have a DVD on this subject in the works, do you?)? Even if the overall length and weight are comparable to the swords Dustin is specifically referring to, the blade to hilt proportions and the features (flukes, very wide compound crosses) are quite different.

I've often wondered what use the stereotypical zweihander was intended for. The oversized guard and the flukes seem like they would make half-swording, in the German longsword style, impractical. But that is coming from a guy who is likely a bit smaller than those Doppelsöldners were. I just can't help but think the bulk of the guys out in the press, lopping off pike heads (and pikemans' heads, feet, etc.) were carrying swords more like Albion's Tyrolean & Maximilian, while the more ornate swords were dedicated to roles like protecting the standard bearer, or in VIP bodyguarding roles.

For what it is worth, ARMA has an essay related to this topic; they surely have more hands-on experience with artifacts like these than I do: http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html
They at least address the handling capabilities, if not the typical period usage.

As Timo pointed out, any weapon is part of a whole system, not as an isolated thing without connections to other things. I'd bet that if you study up on longsword and polearm, then see what you can make of Goliath or the Montante material - this form of sword & deployment seems to have been "task specific", as in multiple adversaries, VIP escort, and such - you'll be able to teach most of us plenty about the sword family in question.

Finally, maybe check out Del Tin's model 2162 - they call it a Venetian sword, but it is pretty similar to a non-flamberged zwei. Not a current KOA offering, but if it's in production, they could probably get you one.

Edit: Well, Jean beat me to it on the DT mention. Jean, you've got both those beasts? You haven't reviewed them, have you?

Best to you all!

Last edited by Eric W. Norenberg on Tue 23 Nov, 2010 7:00 am; edited 1 time in total

From what I've heard it's used more like a polearm, or at least shares similar techniques, though I've no doubt that some of the longsword blows might work, but I'll stick to using it more like a polearm.Member of Australia's Stoccata School of Defence since 2008.
Host of Crash Course HEMA.
Founder of The Van Dieman's Land Stage Gladiators.

Honetly, there isn't a gigantic difference between the larger swords and the smaller ones, just as Christian said. Yes, there are certain biomechanical differences (just as there are differences between using an arming sword and a longsword), but if you understand one weapon, you know the basics of the other. There are certain mechanics that one weapon will use over the other weapon, but that's only after you've gotten down to the nitty gritty techniques. The biggest difference is simply the fact that the larger weapon requires more control. If you've only ever done longsword, and you pick up a larger two hander and start going throug the actions, you'll immediately notice that it requires that you turn your hips a certain way, and that you need your knees and joints need to move in a certain alignment, or else the size of the sword starts to control you rather than the other way around.

I'm going to make a cheap plug here. At NHSC, we're going to be teaching the Spadone, which is simply the Italian name for the Zweihander (or Montante, or Bidenhander, etc). The event is open to everybody, and if you're interested in learning this weapon, then I highly recommend this.

As Timo pointed out, any weapon is part of a whole system, not as an isolated thing without connections to other things. I'd bet that if you study up on longsword and polearm, then see what you can make of Goliath or the Montante material - this form of sword & deployment seems to have been "task specific", as in multiple adversaries, VIP escort, and such - you'll be able to teach most of us plenty about the sword family in question.

I thought I'd throw in my super secret longsword training technique I use an old zweihander to practice my drills, cutting, and master strokes. It makes a regular steel sword feel like nothing.
I am above the average when it comes to height which probably makes it easier, but I am not superhuman in anything besides amazing good looks.... With a little practice, it handles just like a longsword. The sheitelhau is the only cut that is awkward- combination of the extra weight and the extra long grip.

Fighting with a two handed sword is definitely coming up on the list for video features, but the next DVD is focusing on only the single handed sword, sorry Asst Instructor, Selohaar Fechtschule

It's different from the usual longsword in that it's significantly heavier.

Hi Timo

It really depends on the sword however. A montante (slightly shorter and lighter than a dedicated zweihander, on average) may come in well under 5lbs in weight - and there are longswords tipping the 4lb mark. Sometimes it is the extra length and the slightly different balance that affects movement more so than just the weight.

Quote:

No cheating in terms of body mechanics! You need to move with it, need to step with it, turn with it. You must use proper footwork, proper body motion. Of course, you can use the same footwork etc with a longsword, but with a Zweihänder, you must use it.

[snip]

A key point in the Montante manual that's been mentioned before (here and also when we discusses the Zweihänder back at the start of the year) is the body mechanics, step and move with the weapon.

While I generally agree that proper coordination of the body is vital, since you raised the montante as an example, I did want to add a small caveat. Not every action with a montante requires footwork as such. I've been working with the rules for the montante by Dom Diogo for a while now, and he has numerous rules where several cuts (and the thrusts) are made in swift combinations without stepping.

As an example, the 2nd complex rule involves cutting a talho (forehand cut) with a right pass, followed by a revez (reverse cut) and another talho (the latter two without a step described). Three cuts, one step. The pattern continues from the other side: a revez with a left pass, followed by a talho and another revez (both without stepping). The 3rd simple and complex rules begin in a similar way: a talho from behind (below) while standing still, followed by a forward (descending) talho with a right pass forward etc.

Importantly, the thrusts in Dom Diogo's montante rules are given standing still - no step. One possible reason for the lack of stepping with the thrusts is to keep the body stable and in balance: Dom Diogo warns about the importance of keeping the body steady at the end of natural (attacking/descending) movements since the weight of the montante is substantial and we want to avoid falling or being off balance.

They key with these techniques lacking steps, of course, is to harness and coordinate the leverage of the long hilt, the momentum of the sword and the power of the hips, back and shoulders so that even when cutting (or thrusting) without an actual step, the body is pivoting at the hip and adding power and control to the technique. The best analogy for how I do this with a montante is to observe a boxer throwing combos with straight crosses and hooks, driving them by pivoting on the balls of the feet to turn the hips into each punch, even though he isn't taking a step forward or backward.

Sorry for the digression, but the montante rules and movement mechanics are a key project of mine.

While that's true, it probably makes more sense to just study the sources that teach the weapon rather than trying to infer it. It's a faster route, it any case.

Yes, no argument there. My whole reasoning for the inferential route was based on Dustin's statement that there isn't much (if anything) written down specific to the zweihander (somebody correct me if I'm wrong, and recommend a user-friendly translation if you please!). Lacking material specific to the weapon, and if we believe it was used kinda like a long(er) sword and kinda like a polearm, then transferable techniques and philosophies of deployment are the best we can do. Well, the best I can do. Not that I'm actually working out in my backyard with a zweihander. Yet.

While I generally agree that proper coordination of the body is vital, since you raised the montante as an example, I did want to add a small caveat. Not every action with a montante requires footwork as such. I've been working with the rules for the montante by Dom Diogo for a while now, and he has numerous rules where several cuts (and the thrusts) are made in swift combinations without stepping.

Indeed it is so. Also defensive actions can be done on the spot.

One two-hander "trick" that I like has the key part step-free. Against a shorter weapon, perhaps a longsword. Begin in high guard, overhead, left foot forwards. Your opponent, naturally, is out of range. So step forward so that your point will reach about the middle of their head, and cut downwards. They move back a little, since you are barely in range, and this is the shortest movement to avoid it. Probably they raise their sword as well. Pull your hands back and the point back as your sword comes down, to pull short of their guard. End up with body turned to the left, hands close, point low. Raise point and thrust, un-rotating your body. No step, but the body must move.

As Figueyredo puts it, "Based upon those of the sword, you can know the qualities of those for the montante, their weakness or their strength, with the single difference that all the deflections, parries and attacks of the montante must be helped by the movements of the body.""In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.

I really admire the German zweihander swords, and two-handed swords in general. Zweihanders look more intimidating. I wish a company found on K.O.A. would make a replica of one with a straight blade - not the wavy "flamberge" blade.

Anyway ... I wanted to ask you more informed gentlemen a question since many (if not all) zweihanders have a ricasso for gripping the sword further along its length while one hand still grips the handle. I think "Danes" with those cool type XVIIIe blades have a ricasso too.

Am I correct in thinking that these two-handed swords were not used only as swords in the usual sense? Given their length, and the use of a ricasso, were some polearm-like techniques used with zweihanders too?

(SNIP)

Thanks guys!

OK, too much in this thread to answer each individually.

Montante material, de Figueiredo in particular, has material against polearms and sword and round shields, as well as the the more normal to encounter swordsman with sword alone or small side arm. Godinho has material against sword and round shields as well. There is one signal difference with the great two handed sword, you can attack the legs and defend the head at the same time. Godinho has thrusts with stepping. Actually, Figueriedo has thrusts with stepping, e.g. attackers from before and behind, but you're right he wants you to be very certain of your balance and NOT lose it if you do not meet resistence.

Moving to the Spadone, Marozzo has a special posture (guardia) for the spadone versus a polearm, it is guardia contro armi in asti, were the sword is in effect inverted in coda lunga lunga (using the Anonimo Bolognese for this terminology) with the right hand on the ricosso, nails down (thumb reversed).

As far as I know, there is nothing with the sword reversed to produce death blows or thunder strikes, Marozzo does have some close play where you shorten your grip to the ricosso and some prese, but then, that's how you use a long sword anyway. Frankly, is there any way you can't use a long sword?Steve Hick

Although usually Figueyredo tells you when to step, I do the second complex rule with three steps, with changing legs and with one step. The changing legs version reminds me of the Prellhauw (rebounding cut) of Meyer but I should use the flat of the blade then which isn't something Figueyredo talks about. I must confess I still do the rules with a Liechtenauer as I don't have a two-handed sword yet.

Timo,

What you are describing is more or less in the fourth simple rule of Figueyredo which you can do either as a cut that falls short on purpose or not, followed by a thrust. I like your description of the bio-mechanics of it.

So there are definitely some thrusts with steps in there, although the thrust delivered while standing still is common. In many of the thrusts delivered with a step, the foot is withdrawn (i.e. moving back, not forward) or steps offline (diagonal or along the line of infinity sideways). Thrusting straight forward with a step forward is in there, but not as common as with other weapons.

Patrick De Block wrote:

Glad to meet some more people interested in Figueyredo.

Agreed. The Iberian montante sources are one of the ‘sleeper’ elements of HEMA at the moment, but I’m hoping that changes as people realise how fun it is to swing a big 2-hander around, and how beneficial it can be as a form of daily exercise (not to mention skill development).

Quote:

William,

Although usually Figueyredo tells you when to step, I do the second complex rule with three steps, with changing legs and with one step. The changing legs version reminds me of the Prellhauw (rebounding cut) of Meyer but I should use the flat of the blade then which isn't something Figueyredo talks about.

Hi Patrick

I’m not quite picturing what you do here. Do you mean a Bolognese style change step, where we withdraw the front foot back next to the rear, then move the rear foot forward? Or the related version where the rear foot comes up next to the front foot, and the front foot withdraws to the rear (i.e. changing the lead foot without altering distance)? Or (and this might work quite well) a step where the rear foot comes forward with the 2nd cut then immediately withdraws backward with the 3rd cut (maintaining the same distance)? Or a triangle step? Or something else entirely?

In any case, as you say, Figueyredo is usually pretty good at telling us where to step. I think it’s instructive that he explicitly leaves out any mention of additional steps in the 2nd complex rule (among others). The 2nd complex introduces, for the first time, the concept of cutting without an attending step (all the fundamental cuts up to that point were accompanied by their own step). Now look at the 3rd simple rule: a talho without a step, followed by a talho with a step (then a revez without a step, followed by one with a step).

I think Figueyredo uses the 2nd complex rule to introduce the concept of cutting without a step (using the momentum of the sword and proper hip and body turning ala the boxer instead), then expands upon that in the following rules.

But this is just a theory – your suggestion could also be right, and I’m not about dismissing anyone’s ideas at this time: especially since I am working with montante cutting mechanics which I think are a little unconventional and may be greeted with scepticism (I use faster, snappier half cuts ‘to the centre’ delivered with a ‘zwerch-like’ mechanic for the basic cuts, rather than the fuller, ‘through the centre’ sweeping blows I’ve seen other researchers use to date).

Quote:

I must confess I still do the rules with a Liechtenauer as I don't have a two-handed sword yet.

You probably know this, but at some stage it’s really eye opening to work primarily with a longer, full weight steel montante, rather than shorter, lighter steel or even the much lighter wood or nylons.

When I got my A&A steel montante, I had to re-examine all my early Figueyredo ideas up to that point. Working with the heftier, longer steel montante has driven me back to the drawing board more than once and heavily informed my current speculation on movement and the cutting mechanics I touched on above.

The original post mentioned chopping off pike heads... What is the conclusion on that, is that probable enough in battle conditions to be used as a tactic, or is it just displacing the pikes with a cut and then going for the pikeman?

I like your survey, it's a good way for me to see if I got everything right as with the 2nd complex. At first I simply did it with steps, supposing that's what he meant until I realised it was a supposition. Then I started doing different versions and I haven't decided yet.
I meant changing the lead foot without altering the distance, but you gave me some ideas. As Figueyredo wants you to do and undo the rule and he says in the end notes that you should take from them all what you best understand and serves you to defeat your adversaries. But that's something else, I guess I'd better learn the rules first. And by the way, what do you mean with a triangle step?

You wrote:

"... I think it’s instructive that he explicitly leaves out any mention of additional steps in the 3rd complex rule (among others). The 3rd complex introduces, for the first time, the concept of cutting without an attending step (all the fundamental cuts up to that point were accompanied by their own step).Now look at the 4th simple rule: a talho without a step, followed by a talho with a step (then a revez without a step, followed by one with a step)."

I guess you meant the 2nd complex and the 3th simple?

As for the cuts, I haven't decided yet on the upwards ones to stop at face level or higher up at something like a Kron. I tend towards the Kron for now although I think the important thing is happening at face level. For the downwards cuts I stop at face level.

I like your survey, it's a good way for me to see if I got everything right as with the 2nd complex. At first I simply did it with steps, supposing that's what he meant until I realised it was a supposition. Then I started doing different versions and I haven't decided yet.

Patrick

That's ok, we're in the same boat. There is room for a certain amount of supposition with the rules - the trick is working out when the absence of an instruction (e.g. to step) means the absence of the thing, or whether it was simply glossed over and assumed.

Quote:

And by the way, what do you mean with a triangle step?

Triangle steps as described by Meyer. There are 3 key expressions of the triangle step:

a) a simple triangle step without a lead foot change, also known as a 'compass step' where we pivot around a stationery foot;
b) a 'single' triangle step which involves an offline passing or 'sloping' step plus a realignment of the rear foot; or
c) a 'double' triangle, which is a single triangle followed by an additonal step or two.

Here, I was referring to the first two forms of triangle step.

Quote:

I guess you meant the 2nd complex and the 3th simple?

Yes, I did. Thanks to you for catching that. I will edit my post accordingly (whilst acknowledging my error here!).

Quote:

As for the cuts, I haven't decided yet on the upwards ones to stop at face level or higher up at something like a Kron. I tend towards the Kron for now although I think the important thing is happening at face level. For the downwards cuts I stop at face level.

I'd love to be able to discuss this, and compare notes in person, montantes in hand! With the simple cuts, which lead into cuts to the opposite side (e.g. a talho followed by a revez - rising or falling, no difference) I finish with the montante in a point forward position, my hilt high and in front of my face, not far off ochs (rather than kron). When two successive cuts are delivered from the same side (i.e. two talhos in succession) it is necessary to cut through the centre and back around - but even then, I keep the hilt high in front of my face as much as possible.

Quote:

And yes, Ilkka, I'm simply envious.

I know. That man moves with sprezzatura.

Quote:

p.s.: I ordered a two-hander, waiting impatiently.

Good to hear. Did you go with the A&A montante or another maker/model?

I think the first and second rule, the simple as well as the complex, form a subset. The first simple is cutting diagonally upwards, the complex one is the same but thrown in is cutting vertically down and up. The second is cutting diagonally downwards, the complex one also with horizontal cuts from both sides. This means the eight directions and that's why I think they should all be done with a step for each cut.

The second subset is the three ones following where you are taught thrusting and different transitions.

The remarkable thing for me is the 4th complex: learning to turn a 180° which is done stepping backwards while thrusting. As you are cutting down from your right shoulder you could just swing through and turn around to your left with or without stepping or you could have stepped left additionally and turned around to your right ... and in both cases you could form a thrust.
The transitions in this set are not only done as a full swing but also at shoulder level.

I think these two subsets form a set divided from the rest by the sixth rule which is against a montante and the complex one says as much as: if you know how to handle a montante you will know what to do.

So the first five simple and complex are the basics. The 7th till the end are the "real" situational ones. I do not consider driving forward or turning a 180° as situational in the first five. I also think that this second set could (should) be done from the left shoulder guard.

What do you think?

Patrick

Forgot the sword, one from Arma Bohemia.

Last edited by Patrick De Block on Sat 04 Dec, 2010 5:13 am; edited 1 time in total

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum